Well I've been raving about it previously in my blog and how I was looking forward to actually playing a game again. So what do I think, is it any good?
Firstly unlike most people I actually liked the inclusion of Desmond's story so the fact that this one begins directly with a continuation of that was rather pleasing. The story itself has long fascinated me, although the first game had rather lengthy cut scenes they way it drip feeds new information is well paced I feel. The same can be said for this game, except Ezio unlike Altair is actually an interesting fleshed out character and you do somewhat feel for him as the narrative progresses.
Ezio controls more or less exactly the same as Altair did. So occasionally you'll jump off the wrong ledge, but more often than not, if you have a clear path in mind you'll free run correctly. My one gripe with the first game was that for an assassin you didnt feel that sly or assissin like, however this time round you can actually use a few specific assassin abilities for instance, if you are hanging off a ledge you can now assassinate the enemy stood above you without making a complete idiot of yourself trying to first get on the ledge and then doing the deed.
I could go one, but i just feel the scope of this game is bigger in every way than the last, already i am enjoying sitting down and playing a game once more which is great. I do however now look at this game in terms of 'how they did it' for example looking at textures and modelling etc. Bit for me that just makes the game more fascinating rather than ruining it for me.
Wednesday 25 November 2009
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Calling the Shots
Essentially an Art Director is in charge of the artists working on a game. To all intents and purposes they are the manager. They oversee the less experienced artists and mentor them, ensure consistency of art created and drive home the goals and themes of the game being produced.
The only problem with the art director position is that it is rather lacking in the creativity side of things. It's a very important role within a company, but it's focus is on managing and getting the best art out of the rest of the team, as opposed to actually producing art on a daily basis. Art directors will still have the opportunity to produce art but their duties are so numerous this is considerably lessened.
It is quite a difficult position to occupy. For example an Art Director working on a film is free to run with any vision they or the director may have whereas on a game, you are wholly limited by the technical limitations of the hardware available. So not only do you have to guide the artists in the desired direction artistically, you also have to then impose constraints on the scope of what they can produce and problem solve these areas where necessary.
All this delegation needs to have strong interpersonal skills. To make it to this position, you'd have to be more than just an exceptional artist. You need to have the whole package. Be a good leader, get on with the team, be able to manage people effectively, monitor progress and evaluate outcomes, all the while taking into consideration the constraints and directions put your way by those you answer to.
Sounds like a tough job.
Personally I'd just want to create art =D
The only problem with the art director position is that it is rather lacking in the creativity side of things. It's a very important role within a company, but it's focus is on managing and getting the best art out of the rest of the team, as opposed to actually producing art on a daily basis. Art directors will still have the opportunity to produce art but their duties are so numerous this is considerably lessened.
It is quite a difficult position to occupy. For example an Art Director working on a film is free to run with any vision they or the director may have whereas on a game, you are wholly limited by the technical limitations of the hardware available. So not only do you have to guide the artists in the desired direction artistically, you also have to then impose constraints on the scope of what they can produce and problem solve these areas where necessary.
All this delegation needs to have strong interpersonal skills. To make it to this position, you'd have to be more than just an exceptional artist. You need to have the whole package. Be a good leader, get on with the team, be able to manage people effectively, monitor progress and evaluate outcomes, all the while taking into consideration the constraints and directions put your way by those you answer to.
Sounds like a tough job.
Personally I'd just want to create art =D
Monday 23 November 2009
Game Design
Clearly game design is not a subject easily covered in one blog post. Whilst on the surface it may seem feasible to provide a simple explanation of the term, it is in fact more complicated.
Gameplay in its broadest sense refers to the design of a game and the process by which you partake in it. The different dynamics by which you can participate in a game thereby rendering it fun to the player.
Let's take the simplest of games. Tic-tac-toe. The only real variable here which the player has control over is the placement of their assigned symbol for that turn. For whatever the player puts in, they have to get something out. In simple games such as this example, they win or lose. Fast forward to the present day and the number of inputs is ten-fold. Although generally you still win or lose by means of progress or whether you can or cannot 'beat' a game, individual inputs don't necessarily carry this outcome.
Gameplay needs to be somewhat rewarding and there needs to be a careful balance between what the player puts in and what the player gets out. This could relate to things such as difficulty setting, how well the controls relate to intended actions and the overall flow of the game. Each is a subject for analysis in their own right, but for now they bring us to the question? Can you just throw these elements together and get it right?
Well no.
You need a game designer/s to produce a coherent whole. To take the concept of the game and the limitation imposed by technology and adjust and tweak the mechanics accordingly. A lot of games have a beta stage where they are play tested, and in this stage designers will often go back in and change aspects of the game. With the Halo 3 beta, designers gathered data, and based upon it were able to tone done some particular guns in the game which were too overpowered. By doing this, they balance out the flow of the game. Meaning someone with said gun will not monopolise the scoreboard due to its overpowered nature rather than raw skill.
In a developer making games, game design should be a considered throughout. Not just at the beginning. Everything that goes into the game contributes to how it plays. For instance level design, until you actually get into the level you might not realise certain doors are too narrow, or gaps are too wide etc.
Game design should outline gameplay roughly at the start, and then concepts can be produced with this in mind. But then once built, it has to be play tested to loop back and starts again to refine the playing experience. It's all about balance.
In simply card games such as trumps, you could have tons more rules and combinations, but would it make the game more fun, or would it just serve to confuse and alienate players?
Balance is the key.
No single person should be responsible for this simply because it is not going to be played by just one person. Everyone working on the game and outside testers should contribute to provide the best possible representation of the populous.
Thankfully today's genres provide a basic starting point for games.
When outlining a game project, if you know what type of genre you are marketing it as, then by looking at peer games and by drawing on the history of games you can incorporate a few basic principles relating to that genre.
Personally I don't particularly analyse the game play when playing a game, but having said that I can quickly feel if a game has good or bad game play or not. I imagine this is pretty easy for most people that play games commonly. It's one of those innate human abilities to tell if something works or not. If you've played enough games, and know what genre you're playing etc then due to your preconceptions you are pretty well versed to assess if the gameplay works or not.
With this in mind though, it is incredibly hard to be original seeing as we have no ground upon which to judge originality. This is true in life generally though.
A gaming example would be SKATE.
When first announced I was intrigued as a fan of skateboarding games (namely Tony Hawks series) but wasn't sure about the control scheme. When I first had a go at flicking the analogue sticks around, my first thoughts primarily were that it was very different from Tony Hawks. And more importantly it didn't feel right. Having said that, fortunately for EA the controls had good design behind them, and those open minded enough soon adapted. Personally now I could never go back to Tony Hawks seeing as SKATE just makes more sense.
Crazy Huh?
Gameplay in its broadest sense refers to the design of a game and the process by which you partake in it. The different dynamics by which you can participate in a game thereby rendering it fun to the player.
Let's take the simplest of games. Tic-tac-toe. The only real variable here which the player has control over is the placement of their assigned symbol for that turn. For whatever the player puts in, they have to get something out. In simple games such as this example, they win or lose. Fast forward to the present day and the number of inputs is ten-fold. Although generally you still win or lose by means of progress or whether you can or cannot 'beat' a game, individual inputs don't necessarily carry this outcome.
Gameplay needs to be somewhat rewarding and there needs to be a careful balance between what the player puts in and what the player gets out. This could relate to things such as difficulty setting, how well the controls relate to intended actions and the overall flow of the game. Each is a subject for analysis in their own right, but for now they bring us to the question? Can you just throw these elements together and get it right?
Well no.
You need a game designer/s to produce a coherent whole. To take the concept of the game and the limitation imposed by technology and adjust and tweak the mechanics accordingly. A lot of games have a beta stage where they are play tested, and in this stage designers will often go back in and change aspects of the game. With the Halo 3 beta, designers gathered data, and based upon it were able to tone done some particular guns in the game which were too overpowered. By doing this, they balance out the flow of the game. Meaning someone with said gun will not monopolise the scoreboard due to its overpowered nature rather than raw skill.
In a developer making games, game design should be a considered throughout. Not just at the beginning. Everything that goes into the game contributes to how it plays. For instance level design, until you actually get into the level you might not realise certain doors are too narrow, or gaps are too wide etc.
Game design should outline gameplay roughly at the start, and then concepts can be produced with this in mind. But then once built, it has to be play tested to loop back and starts again to refine the playing experience. It's all about balance.
In simply card games such as trumps, you could have tons more rules and combinations, but would it make the game more fun, or would it just serve to confuse and alienate players?
Balance is the key.
No single person should be responsible for this simply because it is not going to be played by just one person. Everyone working on the game and outside testers should contribute to provide the best possible representation of the populous.
Thankfully today's genres provide a basic starting point for games.
When outlining a game project, if you know what type of genre you are marketing it as, then by looking at peer games and by drawing on the history of games you can incorporate a few basic principles relating to that genre.
Personally I don't particularly analyse the game play when playing a game, but having said that I can quickly feel if a game has good or bad game play or not. I imagine this is pretty easy for most people that play games commonly. It's one of those innate human abilities to tell if something works or not. If you've played enough games, and know what genre you're playing etc then due to your preconceptions you are pretty well versed to assess if the gameplay works or not.
With this in mind though, it is incredibly hard to be original seeing as we have no ground upon which to judge originality. This is true in life generally though.
A gaming example would be SKATE.
When first announced I was intrigued as a fan of skateboarding games (namely Tony Hawks series) but wasn't sure about the control scheme. When I first had a go at flicking the analogue sticks around, my first thoughts primarily were that it was very different from Tony Hawks. And more importantly it didn't feel right. Having said that, fortunately for EA the controls had good design behind them, and those open minded enough soon adapted. Personally now I could never go back to Tony Hawks seeing as SKATE just makes more sense.
Crazy Huh?
Monday 16 November 2009
Blitzed
Jolyon was awesome. That pretty much sums up the tone of this post.
I don't know what i expected when i heard a guest lecturer from Blitz was coming in, but what we got was some sound advice from a guy that clearly loves art. His random pictures he'd taken whilst walking around clearly demonstrated his interest in art. I get the feeling that the reason he goes out to Uni to talk to students, is because he loves art. He's passionate about an area and is equally passionate about motivating people in that same area.
The main mantra of the lecture was that traditional art skills are the key to being a good artist. Understanding light, perspective, colour, anatomy, composition, etc. Regardless of medium, being an artist transcends them all.
I agree, which is why i choose this course.
I can't understand why someone would choose this course thinking they could dance around the traditional art side.
Game artists simply are some of the best artists in the world, concept sketches and speed paints show such mastery and understanding of colour and light. I don't particularly care about games, i mean i enjoy them and play them but i didn't choose this course to make games.
I'm a fine artist at heart, but at school i was always at odds with the teachers because the art education systems is ass about face. My old art teacher recently informed me that a government report came out earlier this year which at first praises academic drawing ability and the teaching of core skills but then u-turns and contradicts itself by saying art should emanate from children's spontaneity rather than a prescribed curriculum. The result? Abstract crap which is far from an expression of ones self and is instead a poor excuse for real transferable art skills.
For my alevels i did a contextual study on the standing of digital art in the world today and if it could be considered real art. I was mainly pushing to include more digital paintings in fine art. The teachers hated it and i had some blazing rows in the middle of class simply to justify myself as an artist. I hated my last year of art. Having said that i produced my best work to date and really found myself as an artist. By the end of it i had clear goals.
Due to the nature of the industry game artists need to be outstanding artists. Either that or you might as well be looking for another career. All I've ever wanted to be is a great artist, and the art that has always inspired me has always been concept art for games.
Jolyon's talk only reinforced this in me.
Bring it on.
I don't know what i expected when i heard a guest lecturer from Blitz was coming in, but what we got was some sound advice from a guy that clearly loves art. His random pictures he'd taken whilst walking around clearly demonstrated his interest in art. I get the feeling that the reason he goes out to Uni to talk to students, is because he loves art. He's passionate about an area and is equally passionate about motivating people in that same area.
The main mantra of the lecture was that traditional art skills are the key to being a good artist. Understanding light, perspective, colour, anatomy, composition, etc. Regardless of medium, being an artist transcends them all.
I agree, which is why i choose this course.
I can't understand why someone would choose this course thinking they could dance around the traditional art side.
Game artists simply are some of the best artists in the world, concept sketches and speed paints show such mastery and understanding of colour and light. I don't particularly care about games, i mean i enjoy them and play them but i didn't choose this course to make games.
I'm a fine artist at heart, but at school i was always at odds with the teachers because the art education systems is ass about face. My old art teacher recently informed me that a government report came out earlier this year which at first praises academic drawing ability and the teaching of core skills but then u-turns and contradicts itself by saying art should emanate from children's spontaneity rather than a prescribed curriculum. The result? Abstract crap which is far from an expression of ones self and is instead a poor excuse for real transferable art skills.
For my alevels i did a contextual study on the standing of digital art in the world today and if it could be considered real art. I was mainly pushing to include more digital paintings in fine art. The teachers hated it and i had some blazing rows in the middle of class simply to justify myself as an artist. I hated my last year of art. Having said that i produced my best work to date and really found myself as an artist. By the end of it i had clear goals.
Due to the nature of the industry game artists need to be outstanding artists. Either that or you might as well be looking for another career. All I've ever wanted to be is a great artist, and the art that has always inspired me has always been concept art for games.
Jolyon's talk only reinforced this in me.
Bring it on.
Thursday 12 November 2009
Out of the darkness and into the light!
Nothing beats seeing real art in person. When i found out we were due to visit the New Walk museum to see some German expressionist art i was a little apprehensive to say the least. It's not a particularly large museum and i can't say the German expressionists are particularly well known to me personally.
Having said that, i was really impressed with artwork there.
The vast majority were produced with the wood cut technique. Personally i am a fan of this technique. Back in school i used to produce 2D work in a woodcut style. Due to the tonal values essentially being reduced to black and white, the artists showed a ridiculously good understanding of light, composition and tonal balance/contrast. Some were rather abstract and i was inspired how something so rigid as cutting wood seemed so loose and energetic!
There were also some more realistically cut pieces which showed beautiful attention to detail.
The last room really got me though. Essentially they were all portraits, but in varying different impressionistic styles. I should mention portraits are my favorite thing to draw. I went round studying each one just looking at how each different artist had defined the planes of the face with their own unique marks and style.
All in all, i felt the exhibition was short but sweet. My most inspiring moment came the following day when i was walking back to New Walk museum to draw some bones!
As it happens it was raining so i had taken my glasses off. With the one point perspective down New Walk i suddenly noticed that this blur of colours i was seeing reminded me of one of the German expressionist paintings of some light coming through trees!
I've decided that when i take my glasses off i see colour without being distracted by detail. Which really amazes me. Literally as soon as i take them off all the colours stand out more. So i shall endeavour to try and produce a painting like this at some point to see what results i can get!
Having said that, i was really impressed with artwork there.
The vast majority were produced with the wood cut technique. Personally i am a fan of this technique. Back in school i used to produce 2D work in a woodcut style. Due to the tonal values essentially being reduced to black and white, the artists showed a ridiculously good understanding of light, composition and tonal balance/contrast. Some were rather abstract and i was inspired how something so rigid as cutting wood seemed so loose and energetic!
There were also some more realistically cut pieces which showed beautiful attention to detail.
The last room really got me though. Essentially they were all portraits, but in varying different impressionistic styles. I should mention portraits are my favorite thing to draw. I went round studying each one just looking at how each different artist had defined the planes of the face with their own unique marks and style.
All in all, i felt the exhibition was short but sweet. My most inspiring moment came the following day when i was walking back to New Walk museum to draw some bones!
As it happens it was raining so i had taken my glasses off. With the one point perspective down New Walk i suddenly noticed that this blur of colours i was seeing reminded me of one of the German expressionist paintings of some light coming through trees!
I've decided that when i take my glasses off i see colour without being distracted by detail. Which really amazes me. Literally as soon as i take them off all the colours stand out more. So i shall endeavour to try and produce a painting like this at some point to see what results i can get!
Thursday 5 November 2009
Journalism
I have to say something about the 'Bow, nigger' piece of new games journalism. I was so enthralled in that piece of writing, so 'along for the ride' that at times i actually found myself laughing out loud as i read. I've never laughed out loud reading a piece of writing about games before! I enjoyed the read. It brought a smile to my face. It told a story, and it told it well, it portrayed an opinion and entertained while it did so. All this and i actually feel like i have a fairly good idea what the game is like too. Sod what the game actually does, but i have a picture of how it feels to play it. Infact i actually wouldn't mind playing it right now.
I guess this is the point new games journalism articles are getting at. In an age where magazine sales are down, the writing has to entertain. I mean i used to read Gamesmaster magazine when i actually actively played alot of games and it was quite an entertaining read. It had character and that is why i bought it. These days i read Edge mainly because as a logical progression away from buying the magazines for games, i am more interested in reading them for games journalism in general. Discourse relating to games will always take my fancy. It's such an underappreciated area relating to something that i have a lot of passion for. Thus i have lots of time for it.
At the end of the day, i don't care what a magazine has to say about a game, i will buy a game regardless of it's review. I don't mind previews in magazines and online, mainly because how else would i find out about new games. It's here that the writing counts, does the game sound exciting? Innovative? How does the writer feel about the game. More often than not, if the writer is excited then i will be too. Then again i love to read, i'm a sucker for good writing.
I think it's rather interesting however that lots of journalism in this area is distorted by it's function. I mean the process of creating a magazine often prompts lazy reviews and online reviews have somewhat lax writing. At the end of the day, these things primarily exist to wack a pulsating score on the end of a piece of text which is generally highly indicative of the game is going to do well or not. Games magazines look at other games magazines, and basically learn from their peers so in general it's quite a standardised system. You will not get largerly differing scores amongst reviewers. As far as i am aware a game has never got a 9 in one magazine only to get a 4 in another.
Although it shouldn't count, a bad review is going to deter the greater poplus from buying certain games. That's just the way it is. To criticise it is to crit the media in general which is a whole different beast in and of itself.
In my own writing i value subjectivity but ironically subjectively i value objectivity. If that makes any sense. It probabaly doesn't. If i am writing about something i want to put my myself into it. Otherwise it leaves me feeling dead inside. To inform and entertain is quite skill and one rarely accomplished well. However i don't think subjective writing should be a substitute for objective writing where the writer cannot write objectively very well.
I've kind of confused myself trying to explain the above, however simply put it doesn't have to be as black and white as -
objective writing - boring
subjective writing- entertaining
The best pieces of writing contain elements of both and it's a shame it's not valued more in games journalism!
I guess this is the point new games journalism articles are getting at. In an age where magazine sales are down, the writing has to entertain. I mean i used to read Gamesmaster magazine when i actually actively played alot of games and it was quite an entertaining read. It had character and that is why i bought it. These days i read Edge mainly because as a logical progression away from buying the magazines for games, i am more interested in reading them for games journalism in general. Discourse relating to games will always take my fancy. It's such an underappreciated area relating to something that i have a lot of passion for. Thus i have lots of time for it.
At the end of the day, i don't care what a magazine has to say about a game, i will buy a game regardless of it's review. I don't mind previews in magazines and online, mainly because how else would i find out about new games. It's here that the writing counts, does the game sound exciting? Innovative? How does the writer feel about the game. More often than not, if the writer is excited then i will be too. Then again i love to read, i'm a sucker for good writing.
I think it's rather interesting however that lots of journalism in this area is distorted by it's function. I mean the process of creating a magazine often prompts lazy reviews and online reviews have somewhat lax writing. At the end of the day, these things primarily exist to wack a pulsating score on the end of a piece of text which is generally highly indicative of the game is going to do well or not. Games magazines look at other games magazines, and basically learn from their peers so in general it's quite a standardised system. You will not get largerly differing scores amongst reviewers. As far as i am aware a game has never got a 9 in one magazine only to get a 4 in another.
Although it shouldn't count, a bad review is going to deter the greater poplus from buying certain games. That's just the way it is. To criticise it is to crit the media in general which is a whole different beast in and of itself.
In my own writing i value subjectivity but ironically subjectively i value objectivity. If that makes any sense. It probabaly doesn't. If i am writing about something i want to put my myself into it. Otherwise it leaves me feeling dead inside. To inform and entertain is quite skill and one rarely accomplished well. However i don't think subjective writing should be a substitute for objective writing where the writer cannot write objectively very well.
I've kind of confused myself trying to explain the above, however simply put it doesn't have to be as black and white as -
objective writing - boring
subjective writing- entertaining
The best pieces of writing contain elements of both and it's a shame it's not valued more in games journalism!
The now and beyond
Ok this blog has been getting a little neglected, not only am i behind on a few due to the reading week confusion, the posts i have done weren't given my full attention. I shall endeavour to put more love into later posts. So let's crack on...
In the present day, video games are massive. The industry has grown exponentially. Development costs are in the millions, more and more talent is demanded of those working in the industry as technology rapidly improves and thus talent must match that increase. An example would be that of a game artist, as graphics improve, the pressure to present increasingly realistic concept art arises. For programmers consoles are getting more complicated and the scope for what can be done in a game is ever increasing. From the early days of the PS2 which saw the release of GTA3 the last 8 or 9 years of games have been truly something special. The PS2 itself was a massive success propelling Sony into dominance and by the end of that generation developers were making some fantastic games on the system as they were able to fully utlise its potential. Many cite God of War as the last truly great game to come from the PS2.
We also saw the introduction of the Xbox from Microsoft which was an interesting move, because despite a clunky controller and coming quite late to the game, it did suprisingly well. It also brought us Halo which became a gaming phenomenon in it's own right. Say what you will about the game, it is however massive. Nintendo's offering of the Gamecube seemed to fair worst of all that generation for which it's not hard to see why they did what they did next.
The current generation saw the Xbox 360 have an early release which payed off perfectly. Although it had a slow start, the important thing to remember is that by the time the PS3 came out developers were beginning to optimise development for the 360 and that's were all the best games started to be. The PS3 is renound for being difficult to develop for - highlighted by multiplatform games usually being far glitchier on the PS3 than their 360 versions. Having said that, the PS3 is undoutably more powerfull and i think in the future it will come into it's own.
Nintendo of course have released the Wii. A stroke of genius on their part. Personally i think that if they hadn't have been floundering so badly with the Gamecube they wouldn't have gone off on this tangent. All this talk off innovation and emphasis on the way we play games, it's just good business. Had the gamecube done amazingly well we'd still be playing the Wii with a controller and it'd probably have better graphics too. I guess you can say this for Nintendo - they've got a good eye for opportunity. Good business really. The Wii has broken many boundaries between gamers and non gamers bring casual gaming to the masses. It has become a cultural phenomenon.
Right now we are on the verge of the next big leap in gaming. Either that or it will stall. Nintendo are running with their different methods of playing and now Microsoft has jumped on the bandwagon with Natal. If Natal works anywhere near as good as the demo made it look it will be immense. It could however be rubbish.
Gaming has to grow and develop otherwise it will stagnate. Some modern games are truly awesome such as Bioshock but not all are and there is the question of what next. The pressure is on the shoulders of Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to raise the bar yet again. But in reality how much more can they do? Of course being a potential employee of this industry, the pressure now lands on me. Great. As a game artist, no sorry, just as an artist in general, it's going to be a challenge to bring something more to this already tried and tested medium.
As a gamer, my single favorite game of this generation has been Assassins Creed. Now the story was awesome, the graphics were awesome, the gameplay was fun albeit repetetive but most of all the art was outstanding. It was so inspiring to me that i produced my final piece for my AS level art exam based around it. However personally i feel like good games have begun to die out and i hate to say it but these days i probably play guitar hero and rockband mostly. With an absence of games that draw me in, i turn to the rythm based games for a challenge and that's what keeps me coming back. I miss great games, but maybe i'm not looking hard enough, but they don't seem to be around anymore. Any game i play now i feel as if i have played it before. I long for the days when i used to rush out to the shop to buy a new game and run home and sit for hours becoming immersed in the story and truly having some sort of experience. Games used to influence my art and i miss that too.
Right now i'm looking forward to Assassins Creed 2. Just the thought that i might be as engaged in a game again as when i played the first one excites me. Other than that i don't really have much in the way of dreams for the future. Maybe i'm getting old, maybe i've just gotten out of the loop, or maybe it's something else. I don't know. All i know is, that in 5-6 years time gaming will be unrecognisable.
In the present day, video games are massive. The industry has grown exponentially. Development costs are in the millions, more and more talent is demanded of those working in the industry as technology rapidly improves and thus talent must match that increase. An example would be that of a game artist, as graphics improve, the pressure to present increasingly realistic concept art arises. For programmers consoles are getting more complicated and the scope for what can be done in a game is ever increasing. From the early days of the PS2 which saw the release of GTA3 the last 8 or 9 years of games have been truly something special. The PS2 itself was a massive success propelling Sony into dominance and by the end of that generation developers were making some fantastic games on the system as they were able to fully utlise its potential. Many cite God of War as the last truly great game to come from the PS2.
We also saw the introduction of the Xbox from Microsoft which was an interesting move, because despite a clunky controller and coming quite late to the game, it did suprisingly well. It also brought us Halo which became a gaming phenomenon in it's own right. Say what you will about the game, it is however massive. Nintendo's offering of the Gamecube seemed to fair worst of all that generation for which it's not hard to see why they did what they did next.
The current generation saw the Xbox 360 have an early release which payed off perfectly. Although it had a slow start, the important thing to remember is that by the time the PS3 came out developers were beginning to optimise development for the 360 and that's were all the best games started to be. The PS3 is renound for being difficult to develop for - highlighted by multiplatform games usually being far glitchier on the PS3 than their 360 versions. Having said that, the PS3 is undoutably more powerfull and i think in the future it will come into it's own.
Nintendo of course have released the Wii. A stroke of genius on their part. Personally i think that if they hadn't have been floundering so badly with the Gamecube they wouldn't have gone off on this tangent. All this talk off innovation and emphasis on the way we play games, it's just good business. Had the gamecube done amazingly well we'd still be playing the Wii with a controller and it'd probably have better graphics too. I guess you can say this for Nintendo - they've got a good eye for opportunity. Good business really. The Wii has broken many boundaries between gamers and non gamers bring casual gaming to the masses. It has become a cultural phenomenon.
Right now we are on the verge of the next big leap in gaming. Either that or it will stall. Nintendo are running with their different methods of playing and now Microsoft has jumped on the bandwagon with Natal. If Natal works anywhere near as good as the demo made it look it will be immense. It could however be rubbish.
Gaming has to grow and develop otherwise it will stagnate. Some modern games are truly awesome such as Bioshock but not all are and there is the question of what next. The pressure is on the shoulders of Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to raise the bar yet again. But in reality how much more can they do? Of course being a potential employee of this industry, the pressure now lands on me. Great. As a game artist, no sorry, just as an artist in general, it's going to be a challenge to bring something more to this already tried and tested medium.
As a gamer, my single favorite game of this generation has been Assassins Creed. Now the story was awesome, the graphics were awesome, the gameplay was fun albeit repetetive but most of all the art was outstanding. It was so inspiring to me that i produced my final piece for my AS level art exam based around it. However personally i feel like good games have begun to die out and i hate to say it but these days i probably play guitar hero and rockband mostly. With an absence of games that draw me in, i turn to the rythm based games for a challenge and that's what keeps me coming back. I miss great games, but maybe i'm not looking hard enough, but they don't seem to be around anymore. Any game i play now i feel as if i have played it before. I long for the days when i used to rush out to the shop to buy a new game and run home and sit for hours becoming immersed in the story and truly having some sort of experience. Games used to influence my art and i miss that too.
Right now i'm looking forward to Assassins Creed 2. Just the thought that i might be as engaged in a game again as when i played the first one excites me. Other than that i don't really have much in the way of dreams for the future. Maybe i'm getting old, maybe i've just gotten out of the loop, or maybe it's something else. I don't know. All i know is, that in 5-6 years time gaming will be unrecognisable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)